Op-Ed: Is the US endorsing a war in Syria based on another WMD lie?

Posted Aug 26, 2013 by Abdul Kuddus
Recent allegations of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government that reportedly killed hundreds, especially women and children, has finally propelled the US to act despite lack of solid political support from Americans.
A T-72 MBT belonging to al-Assad s forces is seen in Syria.
A T-72 MBT belonging to al-Assad's forces is seen in Syria.
Military In the Middle East
President Barack Obama who had been reluctant to get entangled in the Syrian mess now finds himself pressured to intervene in the aftermath of a mass-casualty alleged chemical weapons attack
Dr. Webster Griffin Tarpley, an author and historian from Washington in an interview with Press TV said “there is absolutely no proof that the Syrian government did this. Tarpley believes that suspicion falls on the Syrian rebels instead.
"It is the rebels have been losing the war in Syria, so they are desperately depending on foreign intervention," according to Tarpley. "They need the United States to pull their chestnuts out of the fire. Without US intervention, they’re doomed.”
“So, everybody knows with this ‘red line’ stuff going on, the only way you can get the United States to start bombing Syria is to mount a fake provocation,” Tarpley added.
Other questions include why the Syrian government would allow UN investigators into their country and then use banned chemical weapons while they are under such close supervision.
Doesn’t this script look more and more similar to the WMD lie that the US used as a pretext for occupying and invading Iraq? Is Barack Obama endorsing another war based on a WMD lie?
Amid claims and counter-claims of chemical weapons use, the US and the West are looking at all options to punish Bashar al-Assad for a crime he may or may not have committed.
It would be pertinent to note that the Americans at home are sick and tired of war. In such a scenario, will they forgive Obama should the lie surface that the chemical weapons red flag was used as a ruse to remove Assad, as it was in done to remove Saddam Hussein.
Further, it is frightening to envisage a situation after Assad is removed from Syria. The situation could be worse than it is in Iraq. In the last two years, Syria has become a sanctuary for Islamic jihadists, especially foreign radical militants who have a formidable presence in the Syrian opposition.
Should Assad’s regime collapse Syria will brace itself for a bloody civil war between the factions of the opposition and the communities that support Assad especially the Alawites.
If such a scenario unfolds in Syria, will the US army and marines have the patience to get involved in another sectarian bloodshed?
Further, it is not just Syria that the US is getting involved in. The presence of Russia and Iran declaring their stake in Assad’s survival complicates matters for the US.
Reportedly, in response to the US naval presence in the Mediterranean, Russia has also increased its military build-up in the eastern Mediterranean should a need arise to defend Assad’s regime.
On aspect is crystal clear. A US military intervention against Assad’s regime entails a bloody mess and an inconclusive ugly aftermath for which not even the US would own the responsibility.
Despite all the odds, the US seems determined to head for a showdown in Syria. For a discerning eye, the strategic benefits are obvious— the fall of Assad weakens Iran and Hezbollah, forces inimical to the existence of Israel.